Air Force One flying low over NYC - stupid move?

[humanrevolution]

I think so.

I can't believe they are stupid enough to pull a stunt like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aE-7BWoC7U

[Nowhere Man]

Certainly not well thought-out. The reports I read (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/low.flying.plane/index.html) said that while local authorities were told it was coming, they were also told to keep quite about it. The people who orchestrated it need some good thwacks with a clue-by-four.

New York Police Deputy Commissioner Paul J. Browne said the department had been alerted about the flight "with directives to local authorities not to disclose information about it."

Fred

[sarongsong]

One other NY official was alerted:April 28, 2009
...The Bloomberg official who was notified was Marc Mugnos, director of operations for the Office of Citywide Event Coordination and Management. Mugnos didn't immediately respond to questions about why he didn't tell the mayor; Bloomberg's spokesman Stu Loeser issued a statement saying: "He has been reprimanded and a disciplinary letter will be placed in his file."...
AP (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jQCKDUYswf9K9lMjX4oxtDxHVqXQD97RIGO80)

[Larry Jacks]

For the life of me, I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would think this was a good idea. Those who thought up this harebrained idea need to join the unemployment line.

[Celestial Mechanic]

One of the talking bubbleheads on the local news said of the incident, "Photoshop, Photoshop, Photoshop! Just Photoshop it in!" Only problem is, if the government did that then it would only be a matter of time before someone would point out that this flight did not happen and these same bubbleheads would lead with the story that "the government is lying to us". You just can't win! :doh:

[publius]

And the cost of little photo-op was $329K.


-Richard

[LaurelHS]

For the life of me, I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would think this was a good idea. Those who thought up this harebrained idea need to join the unemployment line.

I don't know what they were thinking either.

Jay Leno said tonight that the government's next idea is to send a guy in a pirate costume to Captain Richard Phillips' house.

[flynjack1]

These sort of leadership lapses are very disconcerting. This could not have happened without a bunch of folks knowing about it, and no one said hey wait this might not be a good idea. What's next?

[Gillianren]

One of the talking bubbleheads on the local news said of the incident, "Photoshop, Photoshop, Photoshop! Just Photoshop it in!" Only problem is, if the government did that then it would only be a matter of time before someone would point out that this flight did not happen and these same bubbleheads would lead with the story that "the government is lying to us". You just can't win! :doh:

Jon Stewart said that as well, pointing out their own Photoshopped picture of a view into the cabin. However, since I'm not sure why they think they need the shot in the first place, I vote for the option that doesn't spread unnecessary fear in the hearts of New Yorkers and generally make us look like idiots for not realizing it would.

[Ronald Brak]

Their are plenty of small jets that the president can use to fly around the place, so why is a 747 even needed? In terms of safety of the people on board a smaller jet is a smaller target, and for people on the ground a smaller jet is safer as it causes less damage if it crashes. A smaller jet would also save a lot of money on fuel. Of course, now is not a good time to sell a used 747. It's a buyers' market.

[geonuc]

Their are plenty of small jets that the president can use to fly around the place, so why is a 747 even needed? In terms of safety of the people on board a smaller jet is a smaller target, and for people on the ground a smaller jet is safer as it causes less damage if it crashes. A smaller jet would also save a lot of money on fuel. Of course, now is not a good time to sell a used 747. It's a buyers' market.
You do realize that the planes used as Air Force One are not normal 747's?

[Moose]

Their are plenty of small jets that the president can use to fly around the place, so why is a 747 even needed?

There's a lot of communications and cryptography gear on board, so the president can work if/when he needs to. He's on call 24/7 no matter where he is.

Besides, other than the dignitaries that might be needed at whatever function, there's a sizable press pool that goes along too. It's less disruptive to everyone if they all just travel on AF1 at the same time rather than pull in favors with the airlines who might or might not be able to accomodate the irregular traffic.

And the 747 had (has) greater legs than just about anything. Being able to reach pretty much any destination without refueling makes security quite a bit simpler.

[mahesh]

I think so.

I can't believe they are stupid enough to pull a stunt like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aE-7BWoC7U

Dumb indeed! HR, I saw a photograph of this in the newspaper earlier.
Couldn't believe my eyes, that it has been allowed to happen.
No wonder the President is angry! Oh, the insensitivity of it!

There have been occasions, recently, since travelling west of the city, early in the morning, I have noticed first flights of the day, gliding in to land. The planes, so close to the ground, (runway less than a kilometre away) could be a joy to see.

Heathrow uses its two (parallel) runways, for early incoming flights, so one could have, and indeed often has, planes on either side of oneself, in a very short interval of time.

This is from the 'land-side' and at street level.

But the first few times I saw it, I had a funny, sickly feeling in my tummy, as the planes 'appeared' so close to the buildings...and in some cases disappear behind buildings / local architecture. Having witnessed this a few times, I still don't like it. It's never going to be the same after that fateful day. Never. Somehow the 'fun' went out of it that day in September.

Shalom

[Celestial Mechanic]

Think of it as a terrorism drill. Duck and cover! :D

We're still under orange alert, right? :think:

[Ronald Brak]

You do realize that the planes used as Air Force One are not normal 747's?

I was thinking it (or apparently they) might have novelty value as a result of that.

[schlaugh]

Somebody must have smelled the coffee...

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/air-force-one-backup-rattles-new-york-nerve/?scp=1&sq=%22air%20force%20one%22&st=cse

At 4:39 p.m. Monday, the White House issued an apology for the flyover. Louis E. Caldera (http://lawschool.unm.edu/faculty/caldera/index.php), director of the White House Military Office, who served in the Clinton administration as secretary of the Army, said in a statement:

"Last week, I approved a mission over New York. I take responsibility for that decision. While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, it’s clear that the mission created confusion and disruption. I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused."

[geonuc]

And the cost of little photo-op was $329K.
Perhaps a little misleading, though. According to US Air Force officials, the plane would have logged hours anyway, so the costs would have accrued regardless.

[Swift]

Time for some Swift over-moderation.
This topic is dangerously close to the political limits of the board. I am leaving the thread open for the moment, but I strongly advise everyone to be on their best.

[Fazor]

I'll add that, for what it's worth, I think this thread has done a surprisingly good job of staying non-political thus far.

[NEOWatcher]

Certainly not well thought-out. The reports I read (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/low.flying.plane/index.html) said that while local authorities were told it was coming, they were also told to keep quite about it. The people who orchestrated it need some good thwacks with a clue-by-four.
And the local authorities never said "hey; that's going to raise a problem...No, we won't authorize it" ?
I don't want to blame them, but it is something that should be considered.

What I have not heard yet is what advantage would there be in keeping it quiet.
It's not like a crowd would be gathering at 1000 feet.

[Fazor]

What I have not heard yet is what advantage would there be in keeping it quiet.
It's not like a crowd would be gathering at 1000 feet.
That's the thing. When I first read it, I was like "Well, I understand not wanting to release when and where the president will be aboard a low-flying plane." . . . but he wasn't on the plane, so it really wouldn't be a target. At least, not any more than anything else is.

Maybe they wanted some photos without the one jerk that inevitably moons the camera. :)

[geonuc]

And the local authorities never said "hey; that's going to raise a problem...No, we won't authorize it" ?
I don't want to blame them, but it is something that should be considered.

I'm not sure the local authorities have the authority to not authorize the flight.

<that's a lot of 'authors'> :p

[NEOWatcher]

I'm not sure the local authorities have the authority to not authorize the flight.

<that's a lot of 'authors'> :p
Sure, if it came to not being able to authorize it, I don't see any reason they wouldn't have the authority to author a public announcement in the interest of public safety. Or at least raise it to the level of the mayor or someone.

[Swift]

You do realize that the planes used as Air Force One are not normal 747's?
Just because every BAUT thread needs a certain amount of nitpicking ( :D ), I need to point out that the designation "Air Force 1" is only true when the President is on-board, no matter what plane it is. IIRC, when he is aboard the helicopter he usually uses, which is run by the USMC, that flight is called "Marine 1".

[NEOWatcher]

Just because every BAUT thread needs a certain amount of nitpicking ( :D )
Let me increase the nitpicking in geonuc's defense...
I need to point out that the designation "Air Force 1" is only true when the President is on-board, no matter what plane it is.
The phrase used was "planes used as". Not the "planes known as". Subtle, yes. But; I can understand making it clear to the public.
IIRC, when he is aboard the helicopter he usually uses, which is run by the USMC, that flight is called "Marine 1".
Yes.

[Swift]

Geonuc needed no defense, I know he didn't make the mistake. I just picked his as a convenient post. My nit was mostly at the title.

[Argos]

Air Force One flying low over NYC - stupid move?

Yes, utterly stupid. And the lack of coordination among the government instances involved is astounding. I think the photo-op could be done nicely, if the public was prepared.

[NEOWatcher]

Geonuc needed no defense, I know he didn't make the mistake. I just picked his as a convenient post.
So; now you're picking on innocent bystanders. :naughty:
My nit was mostly at the title.
I wasn't sure where the nit was, but as I eluded to, it did seem to be a clarification in general for anyone else reading it.

Also the reason that I called it increasing nits. ;)

[Euniculus]

Geonuc needed no defense, I know he didn't make the mistake. I just picked his as a convenient post. My nit was mostly at the title.

Anyone picking on Geonuc has to get through me first. :lol:


I agree with the rest of you guys. The flyover was a stupid idea and it boogles my mind how this was ever allowed to happen. Why would anyone even remotely think this was ok?

I've heard the apology, but has anyone responsible given a reason why the flyover had to occur in the manner it did?

[sarongsong]

...has anyone responsible given a reason why the flyover had to occur in the manner it did?Kind'a sort'a:April 29, 2009
...The flyover -- apparently ordered by the White House Office of Military Affairs (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/whmo/director/) so it would have souvenir photos of Air Force One with the Statue of Liberty in the background...
wcbstv.com (http://wcbstv.com/topstories/air.force.one.2.996457.html)

[novaderrik]

Air Force One flying low over NYC - stupid move?

Yes, utterly stupid. And the lack of coordination among the government instances involved is astounding. I think the photo-op could be done nicely, if the public was prepared.

actually, there was a great deal of coordination among the different agencies that were involved- all the way from the President's office on down to the NYPD. .but the NYPD was told not to make a big deal out of it to prevent people from panicking or something, and no one bothered to tell mayor Bloomberg that this was going to be happening. i guess the people in charge slightly misunderestimated the effect on the population not knowing why AF1 was circling overhead with a fighter jet in tow...

[Van Rijn]

I agree with the rest of you guys. The flyover was a stupid idea and it boogles my mind how this was ever allowed to happen. Why would anyone even remotely think this was ok?


They didn't think. That is, I don't believe they thought this through, and the situation was made much worse by miscommunication.

I have to admit it didn't make that much of an impression on me until I watched the video. I think in the officials' minds, they were picturing it as an official flight with escort, but when I see it, it looks like a far too low passenger plane being chased by a fighter. That's a difference in perception that might be more obvious in hindsight, when you're seeing the video.


I've heard the apology, but has anyone responsible given a reason why the flyover had to occur in the manner it did?

I've looked, but so far I haven't seen any clear explanation of why they needed this "photo-op." It looks like it was just something somebody thought would be nice to have.

I'm guessing the limited communication about the flight was security gone wrong. They were probably thinking it would be safer not to let everyone know about the flight (you wouldn't want terrorists to do something). It probably was safer. It was just a mistake to do the flight in the first place.

[publius]

i guess the people in charge slightly misunderestimated the effect on the population not knowing why AF1 was circling overhead with a fighter jet in tow...

As Van Rijn just mentioned, they didn't know it was Air Force One. It looked like a big passenger jet flying too low being *chased* by a fighter jet. The immediate conclusion to draw from that is another 9/11 attack is underway with the passenger jet about to crash into a building or something.


-Richard

[geonuc]

Geonuc needed no defense, I know he didn't make the mistake. I just picked his as a convenient post. My nit was mostly at the title.
Thank you. In fact, I chose those words precisely because I know what the designation means. Anyone who watches Hollywood action movies also knows.

PS: Don't worry, Euniculus is harmless. Unless you're actually in the room with her. :eek:

[GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter]

As Van Rijn just mentioned, they didn't know it was Air Force One. It looked like a big passenger jet flying too low being *chased* by a fighter jet. The immediate conclusion to draw from that is another 9/11 attack is underway with the passenger jet about to crash into a building or something.

My first reaction when I heard the story was, "why didn't everyone recognize it as AF1?" With a bit of reflection, I realized that the only reason I can readily recognize the President's airplane is because I live where the conversion took place, and it's frequently in town for major maintenance or systems upgrades.

[publius]

I've seen Air Force One once "live". A couple years ago, Potus made a speech locally and came into the local airport, which is about 10-12 miles as the crow flies away from me. When it took off, they made a slow circle at low altitude to turn around and head north and I got a nice view of it from my back porch.

I wouldn't have known what it was, save a big 4-engine plane, had I not known beforehand.

-Richard

[Argos]

actually, there was a great deal of coordination among the different agencies that were involved- all the way from the President's office on down to the NYPD. .but the NYPD was told not to make a big deal out of it to prevent people from panicking or something, and no one bothered to tell mayor Bloomberg that this was going to be happening. i guess the people in charge slightly misunderestimated the effect on the population not knowing why AF1 was circling overhead with a fighter jet in tow...

I see. But still it seems like bad coordination to me [not telling the mayor - what the heck?]. If properly conducted the whole thing could even have been made into a celebration.

[Doodler]

It could just be that after eight years, New Yorkers need to get their panties out of a bunch...

[publiusr]

In the 1970s, after all, NYC was targeted by the 8K67 (R-36) aka the SS-9 'Scarp,' better known as the "city-buster:" http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/tsiklon.htm
These were transformed into the R-36M SS-18 "SATAN" and known as Tsyclon and Dnepr... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_(missile)

The "Scarp" could hold 25 megaton 8F675 warheads that could make New York City vanish, after all.

And people in the 70's and 80's went right on living their lives without hysterics even though these behemoth ICBMs were pointed right down their throats.

I would like to think my reaction would have been "Look, AF-1. Cool" and I would have walked back into my cafe. Either it hits something or it doesn't. So much for fatalism.

At first I wondered if some USAF men (sigh) who didn't like the President did this to get him into trouble.

What was the reporter's line (after the thermite destruction of the flying disk) in the original movie "The Thing From Another World" --about the fly-boys being...what was it?

"...smart; all the way to the top."

[Larry Jacks]

The Soviets made several versions of the SS-18. Only a small percentage of them carried a single large warhead, the rest carried MIRVs. Those large warheads were known as "Mountain Busters", as in Cheyenne Mountain (located at the south end of Colorado Springs). There was little need to waste such a big warhead on places like New York City. Those big warheads were intended to take out hardened command and control centers.

[NEOWatcher]

And people in the 70's and 80's went right on living their lives without hysterics even though these behemoth ICBMs were pointed right down their throats.
Yet; if you flew one past them, I'm sure there would have been panic.
Out of sight out of mind.
And; since there was no ICBM attack to look back on, there's no way to bring up scary memories.

I would like to think my reaction would have been "Look, AF-1. Cool" and I would have walked back into my cafe.
Same here, as long as I could identify it. But; I don't think I'd go farther than "Gee, I wonder what's happening".
Unfortunately, that's from a view of never having seen an attack before.

I don't think the flight was the problem, it was the communications. I think that if they had advertised it before hand, it would have been a great PR move, and very well recieved.

I really don't see any reason to keep it quiet. AF1 is at risk anytime it's up there as AF1.

[Salty]

Thanks, Sarongsong, for that tidbit about a photo of the AF1 flying by the Statue of Liberty.

Neowatcher, you are very right...the White House needed to have publicized that a day in advance, with all kinds of hype.

I have no need to add anything further, as all the remarks have been made by others. Talk about a gap in communications.

[Gillianren]

It could just be that after eight years, New Yorkers need to get their panties out of a bunch...

I don't think it would be restricted to New York, should that sort of thing have happened anywhere else. From what I can tell, that plane was flying awful low; I don't think people in Seattle would have reacted much better.

[Doodler]

Maybe its just living near three major airports and an Air Force base that have numbed me to low flying jumbos and fighters.

[publiusr]

It would be nice to have a leadership with an appreciation for all things aerospace.
With the NASA chief still in limbo--I guess that is too much to ask these days.

[tdvance]

it is true--in the DC area, low-flying planes are an everyday occurrence.

[TRUTHisnotfacts]

But why not ASK the American people first before anything takes place from war to having the flu .

why not tell people ? That made no point to do that what so ever ..whos idea was it ?
why do we need to see planes flying over anyplace ? Its just strange thats all I am saying

[novaderrik]

But why not ASK the American people first before anything takes place from war to having the flu .

why not tell people ? That made no point to do that what so ever ..whos idea was it ?
why do we need to see planes flying over anyplace ? Its just strange thats all I am saying

we need to see the planes because the Romulans and Klingons won't share their cloaking technology with us.

[Gillianren]

But why not ASK the American people first before anything takes place from war to having the flu .

I imagine the American people would say no to having the flu. However, the actual virus does not notably care.

why not tell people ? That made no point to do that what so ever ..whos idea was it ?
why do we need to see planes flying over anyplace ? Its just strange thats all I am saying

Well, it doesn't make sense the way they did it, no. But I, for example, see planes flying overhead because I'm close to the local air force base. People up north in Seatac see planes flying overhead way more often than I do. Why we needed this particular photo is a different question.

[novaderrik]

I imagine the American people would say no to having the flu. However, the actual virus does not notably care.



Well, it doesn't make sense the way they did it, no. But I, for example, see planes flying overhead because I'm close to the local air force base. People up north in Seatac see planes flying overhead way more often than I do. Why we needed this particular photo is a different question.

this wasn't just a photo op- the plane was going to fly the hours, anyways, and they decided to fly to NYC to get a few pics of the plane flying past landmarks. no extra taxpayer money was spent on this. from reading elsewhere and what i've gathered from the tv reports, the crews make nifty souvenir cards that are signed by the pilots and handed out to people at the various stops made by AF1 around the world. apparently, they didn't have any pics of that particular airframe flying past the Statue of Liberty and what not.
the only variable not really taken into consideration was the ability of the populace to always assume something bad is happening when they see a 747 fly slowly overhead at a low altitude with an F16 closely following it.

and i really wonder how much real panic was caused by this- was all of Manahattan trying to get out of town at once, or were there some looky-loos that happened to have access to twitter on their cell phone? or was it somewhere in between, with the news media more than willing to blow this out of proportion for the sake of ratings?

[sarongsong]

this wasn't just a photo op- the plane was going to fly the hours, anyways...Reference?

The FAA memo (http://www.avweb.com/pdf/NewYorkCityFlyoverMemo.pdf) (.pdf):(amended) April 23, 2009
The information in this document is considered FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY, and should only be shared with persons with a need to know. Information in this document shall not be released to the public or media...
● Date: Monday April 27, 2009 (Primary), April 28 or April 30 (weather backup dates)
● Planned Departure Time: 0930 approximately
● Planned Time On Photo Op Location: 10:00 -10:30L.
● Planned Photo Op Altitude: 1000-1500ft
● Number of Passes: 2, possibly 3...via AvWeb (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/AirForceOnePhotoOpDidFAAOriginateSecrecy_200292-1.html)

[Gillianren]

this wasn't just a photo op- the plane was going to fly the hours, anyways, and they decided to fly to NYC to get a few pics of the plane flying past landmarks. no extra taxpayer money was spent on this. from reading elsewhere and what i've gathered from the tv reports, the crews make nifty souvenir cards that are signed by the pilots and handed out to people at the various stops made by AF1 around the world. apparently, they didn't have any pics of that particular airframe flying past the Statue of Liberty and what not.

Well, for one, because I'm reasonably sure that's restricted airspace. In fact, I wouldn't want them to get "nifty souvenir cards" involving most buildings, because you do have to fly rather low to make them out. And a decision to fly a plane somewhere to get pictures is a photo op pretty much by definition.

[novaderrik]

they are constantly flying the planes- even when they aren't really going anywhere. it's a military thing, i think, like when the Navy keeps launching planes off carriers 24/7 just to keep everyone busy and well trained.
all i was saying was that even if they hadn't flown to NYC for this, they would have flown somewhere else just as far away- or at least kept the plane in the air for just as long.
all they had to do to prevent this even being a news item would have been to call Bloomberg's office and have him go on the radio or on tv a few minutes beforehand to tell everyone what was going to happen and to get their cameras ready for the cool pictures they could take..

[sarongsong]

So how and where can I get my new Air Force One souvenir photos? http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[novaderrik]

So how and where can I get my new Air Force One souvenir photos? http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
i'm sure they've got a website..
everyone's got a website..

[Gillianren]

they are constantly flying the planes- even when they aren't really going anywhere. it's a military thing, i think, like when the Navy keeps launching planes off carriers 24/7 just to keep everyone busy and well trained.

I'm quite sure this isn't true. The plane designated as Air Force One on 22 November, 1963, was still on the ground the whole time between when Kennedy stepped off in the morning and when he was loaded back on in the afternoon, even though he was expected to be in Dallas substantially longer. Do you have evidence that you're right?

all i was saying was that even if they hadn't flown to NYC for this, they would have flown somewhere else just as far away- or at least kept the plane in the air for just as long.

Yes, and that would be preferable to buzzing the Statue of Liberty.

[Ara Pacis]

The real question is: Will the Franklin Mint produce a commemorative coin to memorialize the event?

[Jeff Root]

Since I have strongly disagreed with novaderrik on a few things
recently, I want to say that I agree totally with your post #50.

From what I could see of that video, the 747 didn't look especially low
compared to what I see all the time. Five miles from MSP, jumbo jets
pass overhead lower than the one in the video. Their huge size makes
them look even lower than they actually are, of course. They aren't
much higher than that when they pass over the center of downtown
Minneapolis, which they do frequently. (Probably every day, but it may
depend on the wind direction and noise abatement reqirements. They
try to spread the noise around so everyone gets equally annoyed.)

I think the idea that there should have been an announcement ahead
of the flight is totally goofy. Either there would have to be a big fuss
about the flight for at least a day beforehand, or hardly anyone would
know about it. And there was zero apparent reason to make a fuss.
Apparently nobody who knew about the flight objected to it.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Jeff Root]

they are constantly flying the planes- even when they aren't really
going anywhere. it's a military thing, i think, like when the Navy keeps
launching planes off carriers 24/7 just to keep everyone busy and well
trained.
I'm quite sure this isn't true. The plane designated as Air Force One
on 22 November, 1963, was still on the ground the whole time between
when Kennedy stepped off in the morning and when he was loaded
back on in the afternoon, even though he was expected to be in Dallas
substantially longer. Do you have evidence that you're right?
I think he meant "frequently" rather than "constantly". Like, the
plane would have flown some day that week. This was the backup
Air Force One. I presume that the #1 Air Force One was in DC the
whole time, if that is where the President was. One plane or the
other would always be ready for him to board. So the other was
free to make a combined practice flight / photo shoot.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[geonuc]

Reference?


I mentioned this much earlier in the thread. I read it in a news source (NYT probably), quoting an Air Force spokesperson. Besides, why would you need a reference for something is assuredly true? Can you imagine the Air Force not continually training it's aircrews for AF1 flights?

"Colonel, you're on call to fly the president where he wants to go."

"But, I've not logged any hours in either of those 747's."

"Eh. You'll get the hang of it once you take off."

[tdvance]

this wasn't just a photo op- the plane was going to fly the hours, anyways, and they decided to fly to NYC to get a few pics of the plane flying past landmarks. no extra taxpayer money was spent on this

It depends--what would the hours have been used for otherwise? Opportunity cost is still cost in dollars.

[tdvance]

Since I have strongly disagreed with novaderrik on a few things
recently, I want to say that I agree totally with your post #50.

From what I could see of that video, the 747 didn't look especially low
compared to what I see all the time. Five miles from MSP, jumbo jets
pass overhead lower than the one in the video. Their huge size makes
them look even lower than they actually are, of course. They aren't
much higher than that when they pass over the center of downtown
Minneapolis, which they do frequently. (Probably every day, but it may
depend on the wind direction and noise abatement reqirements. They
try to spread the noise around so everyone gets equally annoyed.)

I think the idea that there should have been an announcement ahead
of the flight is totally goofy. Either there would have to be a big fuss
about the flight for at least a day beforehand, or hardly anyone would
know about it. And there was zero apparent reason to make a fuss.
Apparently nobody who knew about the flight objected to it.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

I agree it didn't look low in the photos. I read somewhere that it was flying at about 1000 feet, which if I remember right, is just about the height of the Empire State Building. That could be rather unnerving.... though admittedly I drive on MD 100 past BWI sometimes and see planes at the 100ft mark above the road landing often enough. It's like "duck--the landing gear might hit you!" kind of feeling.

[Gillianren]

I agree it didn't look low in the photos. I read somewhere that it was flying at about 1000 feet, which if I remember right, is just about the height of the Empire State Building. That could be rather unnerving.... though admittedly I drive on MD 100 past BWI sometimes and see planes at the 100ft mark above the road landing often enough. It's like "duck--the landing gear might hit you!" kind of feeling.

Well, but right by an airport, you expect planes to fly that low. I get planes flying overhead a lot, as I mentioned, and they're relatively low, because McChord isn't that far away, but 1000 feet? Yeah, I'd pretty well be convinced the thing was going to smash into Tumwater Hill. (The capitol building is close enough that the plane would have to pretty much descend vertically to hit it if the plane started at 1000 feet above my apartment.)

[peteshimmon]

Any suggestion it was a test of evacuation
times of various places?

[Jeff Root]

What would you evacuate? Why would you evacuate it? When?

I read in an article linked from this thread something about people wanting
to evacuate the building. Yeah, right. You see the plane coming, notice
that it is unusually low, and ten seconds later it is past you and out of
sight on the other side of the building, going away. Just when does this
evacuation take place, and what is its purpose?

Damn silly, I think.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[01101001]

News reports have some buildings doing evacuations. Most not. Some individuals decided to evacuate; others didn't.

But I don't see evidence that that was the purpose. Why only some buildings? Who was recording the results? Who would have decided that purpose? Would that make the stories about failures to pass word to officials at proper levels all cover stories?

Reuters: Obama plane photo op startles New Yorkers (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE53Q3S820090427)

Employees at the New York Mercantile Exchange, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and other institutions evacuated their buildings, and hundreds of others called the 911 emergency response line, City Councilman Daniel Garodnick wrote in a letter of complaint to the FAA.

Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124084127590859371.html) (may beg for subscription; if so seek text via Google search):

Fearing the worst, thousands of people streamed out of the skyscrapers and into the streets. Some buildings ordered evacuations.

[Jeff Root]

I wonder if any of the evacuations were ordered before the plane had
finished the shoot and left the area.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[TRUTHisnotfacts]

The strange part is why was there fighter jets next to Air force 1 ?

Is that strange or what ? why would they need jets next to the plane ?

I heard a conspiracy that the reason the planes was flying that Low was to take samples of Air for evidence of global warming ..

[Euniculus]

The strange part is why was there fighter jets next to Air force 1 ?

Is that strange or what ? why would they need jets next to the plane ?

I heard a conspiracy that the reason the planes was flying that Low was to take samples of Air for evidence of global warming ..

I believe AF1 is always accompanied by a fighter jet or two.

[Gillianren]

I heard a conspiracy that the reason the planes was flying that Low was to take samples of Air for evidence of global warming ..

I don't even know how/why that would work, and certainly they wouldn't use that particular plane for it.

[Larry Jacks]

The strange part is why was there fighter jets next to Air force 1 ?

Is that strange or what ? why would they need jets next to the plane ?

When taking air to air photos, it helps to have another plane flying near the one being photographed. In this case, the F-16 was probably a two seat D model with the photographer riding in back.

I heard a conspiracy that the reason the planes was flying that Low was to take samples of Air for evidence of global warming ..

That makes even less sense than most conspiracy theories. Never go out of your way to look for guile when simple stupidity is the more likely answer.

I agree it didn't look low in the photos. I read somewhere that it was flying at about 1000 feet, which if I remember right, is just about the height of the Empire State Building. That could be rather unnerving.... though admittedly I drive on MD 100 past BWI sometimes and see planes at the 100ft mark above the road landing often enough. It's like "duck--the landing gear might hit you!" kind of feeling.

Seeing a plane fly low on an approach or departure path is not out of the ordinary. New Yorkers are used to that. Seeing a 747 reportedly flying at 1000 feet escorted by one or more fighters well away from the normal approach and departure routes was, for a lot of people, a cause for concern.

[Doodler]

I believe AF1 is always accompanied by a fighter jet or two.

Only over home airspace. Other countries tend to get nervous when we roam around with our hardware in their sovreign backyard. :)

[sarongsong]

...You see the plane coming, notice
that it is unusually low, and ten seconds later it is past you and out of
sight on the other side of the building, going away. Just when does this
evacuation take place, and what is its purpose?...Maybe they were thinking more planes could be on the way...

[Ara Pacis]

What would you evacuate? Why would you evacuate it? When?

I read in an article linked from this thread something about people wanting
to evacuate the building. Yeah, right. You see the plane coming, notice
that it is unusually low, and ten seconds later it is past you and out of
sight on the other side of the building, going away. Just when does this
evacuation take place, and what is its purpose?

Damn silly, I think.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Do you remember 9/11? Do you remember how many planes were used and how many buildings were hit and how many nearby buildings were also damaged?

I am sure there were people who also thought on 9/11 what you suggested above; people who didn't evecuate the other tower because the didn't think the same thing could happen again. A few of them may have even survived that assumption, but not many.

[Nicolas]

A few years ago, we had something similar happening here. Over a less populated area, but with arguably more spectacular players.

What people saw -remember, this is Belgium, where the air force begins and ends with F16 and C-130- was a B-1B bomber, flying low and circling the area, when suddenly an F-16 entered the area, intercepted the B-1B and escorted it to a military base. This caused quite some concern and phone calls to local authorities, asking which war exactly they weren't informed about.

Turned out there was going to be an air show a bit further that weekend, and the B-1B was exploring the area upon arrival, helped by one of our F-16's. I didn't mind the event, actually it was thanks to this event that I got to know there was going to be an air shows and a B-1B was coming. I went to see it the next day. :)

[mahesh]

...The plane designated as Air Force One on 22 November, 1963, was still on the ground the whole time between when Kennedy stepped off in the morning and when he was loaded back on in the afternoon, even though he was expected to be in Dallas substantially longer...... my bolds..

Made me gasp there, Gillian, ....quite a turn of phrase, you have there!

I hadn't / haven't heard it put like that.

That's knock-out sentence, if ever there's been one written.

Shalom.

[Delvo]

I don't think it was a test of evacuations or other reactions, but I do know it has to have been deliberate for SOME purpose. There's just no way they could possibly have not known that people would have the world's most obvious and predictable reaction.

[tdvance]

The problem with the "test" theory is so many buildings wouldn't choose the same day to test. In fact, they'd try not to--several buildings in Manhattan evacuating at the same time is a bit chaotic and could even result in fatalities.

[Nicolas]

I don't think it was a test of evacuations or other reactions, but I do know it has to have been deliberate for SOME purpose.

SOME purpose such as taking photo shots of AF1 with NY landmark backdrops? :shifty:

[Graybeard6]

I don't know how taking low altitude air samples would have anything to do with global warning, and in any case an E-4 would not be used. The AF has a number of planes specifically modified for air sampling; none of which look like a 747/E-4.

[geonuc]

I don't know how taking low altitude air samples would have anything to do with global warning, and in any case an E-4 would not be used. The AF has a number of planes specifically modified for air sampling; none of which look like a 747/E-4.
The idea that one of the president's 747's would be used for some conspiratorial air sampling mission is beyond ridiculous anyway. I wouldn't waste any more thought on it.

[NosePicker]

:lol:

Hey NWO theorists & Woo Woos! Your AF1 is out of the bag, around the block, and against the skyline!
:sick:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3545/3498073625_7582b60eee.jpg?v=0

[Ara Pacis]

:lol:

Hey NWO theorists & Woo Woos! Your AF1 is out of the bag, around the block, and against the skyline!
:sick:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3545/3498073625_7582b60eee.jpg?v=0

Ya know, when I first saw that image, I thought you meant to suggest that AF1 was towing a paper bag for air sampling. :D

[sarongsong]

My first thought: "It's an aerodynamics equivalency...?" :lol:

[Trebuchet]

I don't know how taking low altitude air samples would have anything to do with global warning, and in any case an E-4 would not be used. The AF has a number of planes specifically modified for air sampling; none of which look like a 747/E-4.

Just picking a small nit: The AF1 747's are designated VC-25A. (V for VIP.) E-4 is also a 747-200 but is the "Airborne Command Post" aircraft.

[mugaliens]

I think so.

I can't believe they are stupid enough to pull a stunt like this...


Given my experience...

I can.

[Nicolas]

As we all know, when it comes to stupidity, you are the authority.

;)

[Amber Robot]

I heard a conspiracy that the reason the planes was flying that Low was to take samples of Air for evidence of global warming ..

Because we all know how difficult it is to collect air.

[jrkeller]

It was releasing mind control chemicals (Chem Trails)

[sarongsong]

May 5, 2009
...The [Air Force One] photos have not technically been "classified,"...but they are being kept from public view...
nypost.com (http://www.nypost.com/seven/05052009/news/regionalnews/phantom_air_farce_pictures_167671.htm):doh:

[tdvance]

Classified is a special kind of secret, of course (one regarding national security). There are plenty of non-classified secrets, though.

[Nicolas]

Victoria's Secret, to name but one.

[PetersCreek]

All Secret information is classified but not all classified information is Secret.

Sounds like something from the SAT.

[geonuc]

Classified is a special kind of secret, of course (one regarding national security).
I think it's the other way around. Secret is one level of classification.

ETA: What PetersCreek said. The first part.

[sarongsong]

Victoria's Secret, to name but one....and she's not exactly reticent about sharing her photos!
Wonder who those "souvenir" AF1 photos were meant to be for, if not the public, but that probably is a matter of great national security... :doh:

[publius]

Here's the best theory I've heard to date, and some may try to get the appropriate FOIA requests drawn up:

This could've been a joyride for top campaign donors/VIPs. Give them a nice joyride on Air Force One to see the sights in NYC, like the Statue of Liberty. It would be illegal to do that of itself, but if they had an official reason to do it, like updating file photos of Air Force One, the donors might be allowed to tag along.

This is just speculation, but this its the best one I've heard yet.

-Richard

[Gillianren]

I find it unlikely. You think the outcry is bad now?

[Sticks]

publius your post is treading into the area of politics so please watch what you report

[LotusExcelle]

I haven't read over the entire 4 pages yet - but I'd like to nitpick. "Air Force One" is not a single plane - it is a term used to describe any airborne vehicle the president is on at the time (a helicopter or even a large paper airplane can be "Air Force One").

The plane itself is simply the presidential plane. It is not Air Force One until the president is aboard. I know its a nitpick but it IS important.

[Nicolas]

I know its a nitpick but it IS important.

If it's important, is it still a nitpick?

[geonuc]

I haven't read over the entire 4 pages yet - but I'd like to nitpick. "Air Force One" is not a single plane - it is a term used to describe any airborne vehicle the president is on at the time (a helicopter or even a large paper airplane can be "Air Force One").

The plane itself is simply the presidential plane. It is not Air Force One until the president is aboard. I know its a nitpick but it IS important.
Your point has been mentioned several times by several people.

[tdvance]

I think it's the other way around. Secret is one level of classification.

ETA: What PetersCreek said. The first part.


Strangely, one of the three types of classification is "secret", while classified is a type of "secret"--two meanings of secret. There are unclassified secrets, for which phrases like "For Official Use Only" is used in US government, Confidential is used in business (not the same as the Confidential classification, which IS national-security related), and "Restricted" is used in the UK. (A person I know bought old papers from E-bay, and they included a document marked "restricted"--she asked me if it should be reported--I happened to go to the UK to visit one of their places that "don't exist"--darn, didn't get to see Q--soon afterward and asked while I was there--it seemed to be not serious enough to require it be reported, but still annoying that it happened).

[JMV]

I haven't read over the entire 4 pages yet - but I'd like to nitpick. "Air Force One" is not a single plane - it is a term used to describe any airborne vehicle the president is on at the time (a helicopter or even a large paper airplane can be "Air Force One").

The plane itself is simply the presidential plane. It is not Air Force One until the president is aboard. I know its a nitpick but it IS important.
Nitpicking shall not cease here. It is called Air Force One only when the aircraft belongs to the United States Air Force. Other possible callsigns are Marine One, Army One, Navy One and Coast Guard One, depending on which service branch the aircraft belongs to. In addition, there is the callsign Executive One which would be used if the president were to travel on a civilian aircraft.

[HenrikOlsen]

Your point has been mentioned several times by several people.
And has been completely ignored by most others:)

[Doodler]

I haven't read over the entire 4 pages yet - but I'd like to nitpick. "Air Force One" is not a single plane - it is a term used to describe any airborne vehicle the president is on at the time (a helicopter or even a large paper airplane can be "Air Force One").

The plane itself is simply the presidential plane. It is not Air Force One until the president is aboard. I know its a nitpick but it IS important.


Picking ye nitpick. Air Force One is specific to any Air Farce craft he flies. The big blue monster is called Air Force One when he's aboard, because the planes, while nominally of civilian lineage, are under the auspices of a specialized unit of the USAF that handles VIP delivery.

The Presidential helo is called Marine One, as it is operated by Uncle Sam's finest Misguided Children.

EDIT: ToSeeked by JMV. :doh:

Though Executive One is a possible, I personally think that one will remain theoretical, due to insufficient quantities of Maalox for the security staff with the Secret Service to stomach the idea.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Perhaps we should call one of the fleet of potential Air Force Ones that is flying about without the president on board TASKAAF1: "The Aircraft Sometimes Known As Air Force One". Thank you, Prince. :)

[mugaliens]

All Secret information is classified but not all classified information is Secret.

Well, perhaps militarily, yeah - but what if you've merely got a secret you're keeping from your ex? Is that "classified?"

[PetersCreek]

Well, perhaps militarily, yeah - but what if you've merely got a secret you're keeping from your ex? Is that "classified?"

Ah, but then, I wouldn't have capitalized "Secret" in that case. I suppose if you had so many secrets to keep from the (soon-to-be?) ex that you have to develop a system of classification, yes, it would be classified.

[PraedSt]

Someone has taken the fall.

White House Official Resigns (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/08/costs_for_that_air_force_one_f.html?hpid=topnews)

In his resignation letter to President Obama, Louis Caldera, director of the White House Military Office, wrote that the controversy had "made it impossible for me to effectively lead the White House Military Office," which oversees Air Force One and other presidential aircraft.

[geonuc]

One mistake and he has to resign.

[Gillianren]

One mistake and he has to resign.

It could be worse. There are worse places to make mistakes than the US.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Someone has taken the fall.

White House Official Resigns (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/08/costs_for_that_air_force_one_f.html?hpid=topnews)O w! Ow! Ow! I knew I shouldn't have left my sword where I could fall on it. Ow!

;)

[Doodler]

It could be worse. There are worse places to make mistakes than the US.

I dunno, the advantage of the firing squads is not having to live with the consequences of screwing up for very long. The US in the last couple decades has become a very petty and vindictive culture long on angst over the slightest perception of offense, and very very very very short on the rebound after a fall from grace.

[tdvance]

Well, it was a politically-appointed position, and I'm pretty sure all those who take political appointments know they can be dismissed on public-perception or President's wishes (whether whim or reality or a combination) at any time. It's a case of, if you can't take the heat, better stay out of the kitchen.

Of course, that does mean those who take such a job are either, or some combination of: in denial, don't really need the job, or wants the job badly enough even if it's temporary. It could reduce the pool of potential applicants a little.

Suggest that those interested read the white house report--more primary than the news sources, though itself a summary of investigatioj results. Probably as primary a source as we'll ever get.

http://static.cbslocal.com/station/wcbs/docs/flyover.pdf

[Euniculus]

One mistake and he has to resign.

He should have resigned. Anybody capable of making such a bonehaded decision does not need to be in a high level position.

[Jeff Root]

So, how do we get rid of all high-level positions? I presume that means
all heads of state, all governors, lieutenant governors, cabinet positions,
legislators, all members of Parliament, and the like. Also high-level
corporate executive positions? University presidents?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Gillianren]

So, how do we get rid of all high-level positions? I presume that means all heads of state, all governors, lieutenant governors, cabinet positions, legislators, all members of Parliament, and the like. Also high-level corporate executive positions? University presidents?

Now, there's a world I don't like envisioning.

[HenrikOlsen]

So, how do we get rid of all high-level positions?
That's not the problem, the problem is to get rid of incompetents in those positions.

I expect the first problem is to find a way of filling them that doesn't include nepotism and winning who's the best fund raiser contests.

[Jeff Root]

So, how do we get rid of all high-level positions?
That's not the problem, the problem is to get rid of incompetents in
those positions.
Well, yeah, but the post I was replying to implied that anyone capable
of making the kind of decision that Louis Caldera made should not be
in a position as high as his. That means all positions of that level or
higher need to be vacated.

No more boards of directors, no more University reagents, no more
Deans, no more department chairmen, no more aldermen, no more
judges, no more police chiefs, nobody in upper management, nobody
in charge of anything.

Unless you can recruit people from some comic book Universe who are
omnicient and incapable of error??

Who read the PDF that tdvance linked? It is quite clear from that
analysis that several people in several different organizations discussed
the flight, and nobody raised any serious objections. The flight, as it
was very briefly described to Caldera, did not stand out as anything to
question. Caldera's permission was not required. His office was informed
of the plans for the flight, and asked for input. Caldera was not given
detailed information about the flight. He didn't ask for any because he
wasn't aware of any need for it.

The only people who never make that mistake are people who never
do anything.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[BetaDust]

Who read the PDF that tdvance linked?

I did.


It is quite clear from that
analysis that several people in several different organizations discussed
the flight, and nobody raised any serious objections.

Witch leaves us with the question, Why?
Why did nobody raise any objections?


The only people who never make that mistake are people who never
do anything.

Those people, most of the time, don't get into positions to make this (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/87684-air-force-one-flying-low-over-nyc-stupid-move.html) kind of a mistake.

--Dennis

[mahesh]

Thanks Todd and Praed.. for your links guys.
I did read them. Amazing how 'open' that White House memorandum / pdf, is!

It's wonderful to know / realise how up-front / transparent 'things' can be / are, the other side of the pond.

fffft....I can't see something like this happening here!! just the last two days' 'parliamentary' news events, unfolding, take my breath away...

touching politics, so i better zip it!

[geonuc]

He should have resigned. Anybody capable of making such a boneheaded decision does not need to be in a high level position.
True, it was boneheaded, but hardly a high level position.

[Ara Pacis]

Now, there's a world I don't like envisioning.

A world run by middle-management isn't much better than a world run by Peter Principals.
(pun intended)

[Doodler]

I was thinking about this thread on my coffee run this morning, when I saw a C-130 do a low slow turn over Fulton. Could not have been more than a couple thousand feet up, the plane was about 6" long in field of view, at not more than 20 degrees of inclination.

No panic, no screaming crowds, no calls for therapists.

Yeah, New Yorkers, real tough crowd.:lol::rolleyes:

[Gillianren]

And how close to an airport was that?

[Larry Jacks]

I was thinking about this thread on my coffee run this morning, when I saw a C-130 do a low slow turn over Fulton. Could not have been more than a couple thousand feet up, the plane was about 6" long in field of view, at not more than 20 degrees of inclination.

No panic, no screaming crowds, no calls for therapists.

Did the C-130 have a fighter escort? Oh, and have any planes slammed into buildings in Fulton?

Reportedly, the 747 (much larger than a C-130, BTW) was flying at roughly 1000 feet above the ground with a fighter nearby (most likely carrying the photographer). That, and given the plane wasn't on a normal flight route and was near a city that had suffered airliners slamming into buildings killing almost 3000 people, well, the two situations aren't really comparable.

[Nicolas]

Especially since a C-130 is quite easily recognisable as a military craft and often flies low. Let me put it differently: I've never seen one above 1000 ft here. :)

[Doodler]

And how close to an airport was that?

Nowhere near one. I'm about 15 miles away from BWI here. Though the nature of its turn from somewhat NW to somewhat SE gave me the impression it was lining up for an approach to Andrews AFB.

[geonuc]

Nowhere near one. I'm about 15 miles away from BWI here. Though the nature of its turn from somewhat NW to somewhat SE gave me the impression it was lining up for an approach to Andrews AFB.
I think Andrews qualifies as an airport, at least in the context of Gillian's comment.

[Gillianren]

I think Andrews qualifies as an airport, at least in the context of Gillian's comment.

Yes. How's "runway," for better clarity?

[Doodler]

I think Andrews qualifies as an airport, at least in the context of Gillian's comment.

Andrews is a bit farther away from where I saw the plane than BWI, actually.

In any event, I was just demonstrating that low flying planes are a part of every day life for me, even when they aren't on predictable patterns.

Just because something in life doesn't follow a predictable pattern, even after a tragedy, is no reason to spend the rest of your life with Valium in a Pez dispenser and a therapist on speed dial. If so, then said person is entirely too stressed out by normal life and seriously needs an enema...

[Van Rijn]

Just because something in life doesn't follow a predictable pattern, even after a tragedy, is no reason to spend the rest of your life with Valium in a Pez dispenser and a therapist on speed dial. If so, then said person is entirely too stressed out by normal life and seriously needs an enema...

I don't see what this has to do with a reaction to what appears to be a low-flying passenger jet seemingly being chased by a fighter jet over the sky of New York City.

I would consider such a reaction to be quite reasonable.

[Ara Pacis]

Nowhere near one. I'm about 15 miles away from BWI here. Though the nature of its turn from somewhat NW to somewhat SE gave me the impression it was lining up for an approach to Andrews AFB.

Doesn't 15 miles from an airport qualify as close? After all, they have diagonal glide slopes that mean they will be fairly low fairly far away from the runway. I live 20 miles from a busy UPS hub and we have freight planes flying low overhead at night. The tallest building is a 5 or 6 story courthouse that's still lower than the surrounding ridges. Being in a city with building that project up 100+ stories would provide a different perspective where one might look out and see the aircraft not "up in the sky" but at eye level. Actually, I wonder if the curvature of the earth might make it seem like they are looking down at it. Couple that with the well known convention that big ol'e jet airliners aren't normally supposed to be flying where it was flying unless it was crashing into something like a building or the Hudson, and concern for one's safety seems prudent.

For better or worse, that's the genetics that survived in the human population over the millenia, because... well, it managed to survive whilst curiosity killed more than cats.

[mugaliens]

Fifteen miles out for most approaches is usually a good 4,000 feet above the terrain. For example, for the ILS RWY 35L approach into Denver International Airport, aircraft are required to be at or above 10,000 ft MSL at 16.6 NM from the VOR/DME. The field elevation is 5341 ft MSL, so that puts it about 4700 feet above the terrain.

Not quite a mile higher than the mile high airfield, but close.

[mahesh]

.....Ah, The President made a joke of it, I read (yesterday) at the Washington Press Dinner thingie, last week....
hastening to add, amonngst many other jokes....

[sarongsong]

.....Ah, The President made a joke of it...May 10, 2009
...Now Sasha and Malia aren't here tonight because they're grounded. You can't just take Air Force One on a joy ride to Manhattan. (Laughter.) I don't care whose kids you are. (Laughter.) We've been setting some ground rules here. They're starting to get a little carried away...
politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22334.html):doh: